Tuesday, December 29, 2009

For What It's Worth

My wife got me a copy of Ta-Nehisi Coates's book The Beautiful Struggle for Christmas and I finished it in about 48 hours. It's a great book, and portrays Coates's rough upbringing in West Baltimore through a poetic filter that really helps anyone (even a white kid from Montgomery County) relate to his story.

The book got me thinking about a lot of things, but one passage in particular really hit home:
"Nowadays, I cut on the tube and see the dumbfounded looks, when over some minor violation of name and respect, a black boy is found leaking on the street. The anchors shake their heads. The activists give their stupid speeches, praising mythical days when all disputes were handled down at Ray's Gym. Politicians step up to the mic, claim the young have gone mad, their brains infected, and turned superpredator. Fuck you all who've ever spoken so foolishly, who've opened your mouths like we don't know what this is. We have read the books you own, the scorecards you keep -- done the math and emerged prophetic. We know how we will die -- with cousins in double murder suicides, in wars that are mere theory to you, convalescing in hospitals, slowly choked out by angina and cholesterol. We are the walking lowest rung, and all that stands between us and beast, between us and the local zoo, is respect, the respect you take as natural as sugar and shit. We know what we are, that we walk like we are not long for this world, that this world has never longed for us."
At this point in the book, Coates was about to be in yet another fight, but would find himself overcome by the urge to fight back, the opposite of the clumsy and often unsuccessful escapes he had attempted in the past.

Growing up, Coates didn't only reject the attractions of the street because he feared them; he simply felt that he wasn't made for that world, and avoided it whenever possible. His father forced him to read as much as possible and kept his schedule full. Coates preferred Dungeons and Dragons to the ebb and flow of turf wars and pushing product. But just like everyone else growing up around him Coates had to maintain the appearance of someone who wasn't soft to prevent unwanted attention. The quote above and the ensuing fight are the first time that Coates really lets his frustration show through the filters he eloquently placed over the rest of the story. Though I grew up far from Coates's neighborhood and never came close to the hardship he experienced, I was able to relate to the feelings Coates laid bare.

I've always striven to help others. I briefly taught in two Baltimore public schools and education is the focus of my current job. I did plenty of service projects in high school and college, many of which brought me face to face with addicts, criminals, or homeless people. Throughout all of these experiences, my parents and teachers constantly reminded me of the importance of empathy. People should be treated with respect. No matter what they look like, which chemicals they lust after, which crimes they've committed, or what kind of environment they live in, people deserve your full attention when they talk to you and eye contact when you interact.

The necessity of that last sentence embarrasses me, but I feel people need to be reminded of that.

Friends and family know that I like to discuss politics, and race relations has always been a point of particular interest to me. Starting in eighth grade, I made a point to become well-versed in the similarities, differences, and connections between the white and black experience in America and today I feel, perhaps incorrectly, that I have a good sense of the troubles that continue to plague those around me.

Unfortunately, unless I'm citing a statistic, I find that using this knowledge often garners skepticism, disdain, or confusion from my audience. People who hear me speak with confidence about "black" things can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that I'm not an Africana Studies major who wears a dashiki to bed and plays a djembe when nobody's watching. I've all but resigned myself to the fact that using what I know about the black community's ails will most likely never be seen as fully authentic because I'm white, and didn't experience these problems firsthand. I will always be treated as either insincere or trying to "be black." This is where my feelings intersect with Coates's in the quoted passage.

It infuriates me. The complete and total lack of empathy towards people who face the threat of injury or death every day for going about their business. The discussions about them as if they're a dehumanized group of faceless bodies who have chained themselves to the ghettos for the sake of pride. You may hear about what happens in the places you avoid on the news, but you don't know, and most people don't even try to understand. I understand why Coates was so angry.

We may not say it out loud, but Obama's election convinced many of us that, as a country, we are officially beyond racism's evil reach. In a time when racism is becoming a dirty word, fit only for those who wear hoods and burn crosses, it is imperative that anyone with the ability to convey important stories be taken seriously, regardless of their background. We will never be able to pay proper dues for the horrors imposed on the tribes that were here before the Europeans, or the slaves brought here for hundreds of years, but until we empathize with the struggles facing the less fortunate, we will be doomed to pursue a limited national success that, by its nature, prevents many members of our society from sharing in the prosperity.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk

I haven't written much on the debate (and I use that term loosely) over health care reform because while I've paid attention, I'm still not sure I understand the current system well enough to imagine what impacts the proposed changes will have. Still, there's no way to escape the bizarre (albeit typical) behavior of congressional Democrats regarding Joe Lieberman. For those who don't know, Lieberman has been threatening to filibuster any bill that includes an expansion of Medicare coverage, or anything resembling a government-run insurance plan... sort of.

Since his threat was issued, the liberals everywhere have flipped their lids, demanding, among other things, that Lieberman be removed of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Some have reiterated the call for Harry Reid to be replaced, contending that he is weak and incompetent, even when his party is in charge. Still others are blaming the White House for being too laissez faire with the processes at work in Congress.

I can't comment on Lieberman's motives or angle here; I just don't know enough about his political history. In principle, however, it doesn't seem ridiculous for someone who's listed as an Independent to decline falling in line with a major party, even if he has gone back and forth with his support several times. And this can't be completely unexpected! Lieberman actively campaigned against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

A quick note for all those complaining about a lack of leadership and direction from the White House:

During his campaign and the beginnings of the health care discussions, Obama said that he wanted to be the kind of President that didn't have to lead a flock of 535 immature, incessantly-babbling politicians from one step of the legislative process to the next.

His words were obviously nicer than mine, but Obama's point was that he's purposely trying to pull back the amount of control he has to exert over Congress. He wants Congress (all of it) to grow a spine again. He has stated several times what he wants in the bill, and he'll help wheel'n'deal behind the scenes, but I don't think you're going to see the kind of heavy-handed leaning that we're used to unless something starts to go horribly, horribly wrong. To that end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to make damn sure that they get their party in line so that when they see a chance at success, they can pounce on it.

Whatever you do, don't mistake Obama's reluctance to lean on Congress for an aversion to participating in the legislative process. He wants to make sure that all his speeches and discussions count, and that means being judicious with his time. It's a lot like TNC's oft-repeated advice for himself: don't say anything if you don't know or can't add anything new.

While the administration might not be married to the public option, they have certainly been pushing for deals that make it possible. The White House has made clear that the administration's preference would be to appeal to Olympia Snowe (which would've practically guaranteed an public option in a few years), but bowed to Harry Reid's promise of 60 votes for a public option instead.

We haven't really seen Obama lean on Congress yet. Does anyone really doubt that he could make something good happen if he wanted to spend that kind of political capital? I don't think he's willing to settle for something that can't really be called successful. He knows too much is at stake for his party, his presidency, and the movement that gave him its banner last November.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

We Won't Get It

Reading things like this does two things to me:

1 - It blows my mind.

2 - It reminds me of why I get so angry when I hear people doing things like this. Or this. Or this. Or defending this. Or saying this.

There are people alive today who dealt with Jim Crow as they grew up, but because we're almost 150 years past the end of slavery, we're far enough removed from the days of whippings, plantations, and the underground railroad to be sensitive about it. At least that's the message I get when I hear people use the word nigger, or see them sport the confederate flag for the sake of "heritage." I cringe because it shows how little we, as a country, understand the magnitude of slavery's brutality. I don't think we'll ever be able to fully appreciate the magnitude of its effects. Consider that for more than half its existence, the economy of the United States depended on the abuse and oppression of millions of people.

Many of the people who do the aforementioned things are not racist at their core. Many of them honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what they do, and they often do not mean any harm. But this is no excuse. By utilizing these provocative symbols in a modern context, people show a remarkable callousness towards the incredible damage done to our country as a result of slavery's existence. Furthermore, by trying to save or redeem these symbols, we prevent ourselves from coming to a very logical conclusion: there are ways to remember the sinister aspects of our history without forcing the acceptance of tainted symbols and ideas into our modern culture.

We don't lose anything by dropping these symbols from our everyday lives. People should leave these sordid cultural artifacts where they belong: in museums.

Reads: